## Gittin Daf 11a

###### Gittin 11a:1
[Gittin 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:1)

בְּשֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We are dealing **with unambiguous** gentile **names,** in which case there is no need to be concerned that people might rely on these individuals as witnesses for the transfer, as it is evident that they are gentiles.


###### Gittin 11a:2
[Gittin 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:2)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, כְּגוֹן: הוֹרְמִיז, וַאֲבוּדַיָּנָא, בַּר שִׁיבְתַּאי, וּבַר קִידְרֵי, וּבָאטִי, וּנְקִים אוּנָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** of **unambiguous** gentile **names? Rav Pappa said:** This is referring to names **such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.**


###### Gittin 11a:3
[Gittin 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:3)

אֲבָל שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין מוּבְהָקִים מַאי – לָא?! אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט; לִפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּשֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין, אֲבָל שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין מוּבְהָקִין – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **However,** if the bill of divorce or manumission was signed by gentile witnesses with **ambiguous names, what** is the *halakha*? Is this **not** a valid document? **If so, instead of teaching** in **the latter clause** of the mishna: These two types of documents are **mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person,** not in court, **let him distinguish and teach** the distinction **within** the case of gentile courts **itself,** as follows: **In what** case **is this statement,** that gentile signatures are valid for a bill of divorce or manumission, **said? With regard to unambiguous names. However,** in a case of **ambiguous names, no,** gentile witnesses are not valid.


###### Gittin 11a:4
[Gittin 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:4)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּשֵׁמוֹת מוּבְהָקִין, אֲבָל בְּשֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין מוּבְהָקִין, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט, וּפְסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That is also what he is saying,** i.e., Rabbi Shimon’s statement that these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are also valid should be understood in this very manner: **In what** case **is this statement said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, with regard to ambiguous names,** the document **becomes like one that was prepared by a common person, and** therefore such documents **are invalid.**


###### Gittin 11a:5
[Gittin 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:5)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְגִיטֵּי מָמוֹן, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ גִּיטֵּי מָמוֹן דִּפְסוּלִים, אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** a different answer: In the **last clause** of the mishna, which states: These types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, we are no longer discussing bills of divorce; rather, **we arrive at** the case of **financial documents.** Furthermore, this clause of the mishna is not a continuation of Rabbi Shimon’s statement, as it returns to the opinion of the first *tanna*. **And this is what** the mishna **is saying: Financial documents were mentioned as invalid only when they were prepared by a common person,** whereas if they were produced by a court they are valid.


###### Gittin 11a:6
[Gittin 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:6)

תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, כָּךְ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לַחֲכָמִים בְּצַיְדָּן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲכָמִים עַל כׇּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָעוֹלִין בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶן גּוֹיִם – כְּשֵׁרִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים; לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט – שֶׁרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִים – חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:4): **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said** that **Rabbi Shimon said this to the Sages in** the city of **Tzaidan: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, that even though their signatories are gentiles,** these documents are **valid, even** in the case of **bills of divorce and** bills **of manumission. They disagreed only when they were prepared by a common person,** outside a court, **as Rabbi Akiva deems** a document of this kind **valid, and the Rabbis deem it invalid, except for bills of divorce and** bills **of manumission.**


###### Gittin 11a:7
[Gittin 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:7)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵלּוּ – כְּשֵׁירִין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל חוֹתְמִין, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוֹתְמִין – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these,** bills of divorce and manumission, **are valid in a place where Jews do not sign.** In other words, the *halakha* that a document with gentile signatories is valid applies only in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign, as everyone knows that gentile documents are not signed by Jews. **However, in a place where Jews sign, no,** these documents are not valid either, as people might mistakenly think that Jews signed this bill of divorce. Therefore there is a concern that one might deliver this bill of divorce in the presence of those witnesses, who are actually gentiles, which would render the bill of divorce invalid.


###### Gittin 11a:8
[Gittin 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:8)

מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל חוֹתְמִין נָמֵי, לִיגְזוֹר אַטּוּ מְקוֹם שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוֹתְמִין! שֶׁמָּא בִּשְׁמָא מִחַלַּף, אַתְרָא בְּאַתְרָא לָא מִחַלַּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us also decree** in **a place where Jews do not sign due to a place where Jews do sign.** The Gemara answers: One might **confuse** one **name with** another **name.** It is possible that one might think that a certain name is that of a Jew when it is actually that of a gentile. However, one is **not** likely to **confuse** one **place with** another **place.** Since everyone knows that all of the signatures in certain places belong to gentiles, they are careful not to transfer a bill of divorce in the presence of the witnesses who signed it, unless they are certain that the witnesses are Jews.


###### Gittin 11a:9
[Gittin 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:9)

רָבִינָא סָבַר לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי בִּכְנוּפְיָאתָה דְאַרְמָאֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַפְרָם: ״עַרְכָּאוֹת״ תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates that **Ravina thought to deem valid** a document that was written **by a group of gentiles [*arma’ei*]. Rafram said to him** that **we learned:** Gentile **courts,** in the mishna, i.e., these documents are valid only if they were produced in an important court, not by every group of gentiles.


###### Gittin 11a:10
[Gittin 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי שְׁטָרָא פָּרְסָאָה, דְּמַסְרֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּאַפֵּי סָהֲדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל – מַגְבִּינַן בֵּיהּ מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rava said:** With regard to **this Persian document [*shetara parsa’a*]** written by the Persian authorities **that was transferred to** the recipient **in the presence of Jewish witnesses,** he **can collect with it non-liened** property, i.e., property that is unencumbered by a mortgage. Although this is not considered a proper document by means of which one can collect from any land sold by the debtor, nevertheless, the facts in the document are considered accurate, and therefore one may at least collect non-liened property with it.


###### Gittin 11a:11
[Gittin 11a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:11)

וְהָא לָא יָדְעִי לְמִיקְרֵא? בִּדְיָדְעִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** the witnesses for the transmission of this document **do not know** how **to read** Persian, as most Jews did not read that language. If so, how can they serve as witnesses? The Gemara answers: Rava is referring to a situation **where** the witnesses **know** how to read Persian.


###### Gittin 11a:12
[Gittin 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:12)

וְהָא בָּעֵינָא כְּתָב שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְזַיֵּיף, וְלֵיכָּא! בְּדַאֲפִיצָן. וְהָא בָּעֵינָא ״צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר מֵעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר בְּשִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה״, וְלֵיכָּא! בִּדְמַהְדַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: **But I require** that the document be **written** in a manner **that cannot be forged, and it is not** so in this document, as the Persians were not particular about preparing their documents in this manner when writing their legal documents. The Gemara explains: Rava’s statement applies **in** a case where the paper of the documents was processed **with gall.** Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing (see 19b). **But I require that** a document **review the** essential **topic of the document in its last line, and it is not** so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Rava’s statement applies **in** a case **where it returned** to review the essential topic of the document in the final line.


###### Gittin 11a:13
[Gittin 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:13)

אִי הָכִי מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי נָמֵי! לֵית לֵיהּ קָלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** he should be able to collect **from liened** property **as well,** as this document is equivalent to one written by a Jew. Why doesn’t Rava say that it can be used to collect from liened property as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this document does **not** generate **publicity,** i.e., a legal matter that is performed in a Persian court will not become publicized among Jews. Therefore, this case is similar to a loan by oral agreement, where the transaction is not publicized. In this case the lender can collect only from non-liened property, as purchasers from the debtor would not have been aware of his debt and consequently taken sufficient measures to ensure that the money would not be claimed from their purchase.


###### Gittin 11a:14
[Gittin 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/11a:14)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan:**